dryer at buffalo.edu
Thu Jun 19 01:21:54 UTC 2008
I think Tom's quite right about the issue of what is the default being
something of a red herring. I confess to somewhat opportunistically using
that topic as a segue into a related but more substantive point, which is
that there is a widespead tendency of linguists of many stripes - not just
generative linguists, but construction grammarians, cognitive semanticists,
and even some deeply involved in grammaticalization - to assume that where
we linguists find patterns in language, speakers must find the same
patterns as well.
I should also point out, in response to Edith's comment, that the case I
was commenting on is actually not one that involves "people holistically
memorizing expressions that are usually analyzed as adpositional phrases".
Under the alternative I was proposing, people do analyse adpositional
phrases into "adposition" plus noun phrase; it's just that people don't
recognize that different "adpositions" all do the same thing. I.e. they
don't recognize the pattern and thus don't reocgnize a class of adpositions.
Unfortunately, I'm guilty of what Fritz was originally accused of. I've
given a (brief) abstract of a paper without providing the arguments that
are in the paper (which I haven't written up yet).
--On Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:30 PM -0700 Tom Givon <tgivon at uoregon.edu>
> It seems to me that this discussion gravitates, slowly but surely,
> towards an empirical vacuum. Perhaps a better learning strategy for all
> of us would be to concede that, in principle, both holistic and analyzed
> processing of complex expressions are in principle ('cognitively')
> available to speakers. Then find methods by which we can tell one
> strategy (as used by speakers/hearers) from the other; then find contexts
> that induce speakers/hearers to prefer one strategy over the other; and
> then--voila, denouement--count the frequency distribution of the two
> types of behavior in various contexts. To simply express personal
> preference for one over the other as 'the default strategy' is not all
> that helpful. Cheers, TG
> David Tuggy wrote:
>> Edith Moravcsik wrote:
>>> <snip>If we did not know that these expressions might be analyzed by
>>> linguists as multi-part phrases, there would be nothing suprising
>>> about how people treat them; and we would lose the interesting
>>> question of why linguists' analyses and people's ways of processing
>>> these expressions parted ways.
>>> The same holds for formulaic expressions in general. The reason it is
>>> interesting that people treat them as atomic wholes is that we
>>> linguists can analyze them as having parts.
>> Well, it is also interesting that people can also analyze them as
>> having parts. Linguists are people too, of course, but non-linguist
>> people are often quite aware of parts of formulaic structures. The
>> fact that both modes are available (though perhaps differentially
>> attractive) to both linguists and language speakers is, I would
>> maintain, highly important (as well as interesting).
>> --David Tuuggy
More information about the Funknet